Each of the counts concluded with a prayer for an injunction against the picketing. Whether the District Court's anticipation of Jacksonville Terminal was correct in the circumstances of the present case is not now before us. ... Atlantic Coast Line, and Southern railroads. While the railroad could probably have based its federal case on the pendent state law claims as well, United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U. S. 715 (1966), it was free to refrain from doing so and leave the state law questions and the related issue concerning preclusion of state remedies by federal law to the state courts. And, quite apart from counsel's argument, it is apparent that the District Judge viewed his own 1967 order as delineating a federally protected right for the BLE picketing in question. Donovan v. City of Dallas, 377 U.S. 408, 84 S.Ct. While the lower federal courts were given certain powers in the 1789 Act, they were not given any power to review directly cases from state courts, and they have not been given such powers since that time. * * * The injunction of the state court, if allowed to continue in force, would effectively nullify this Court's findings and delineation of rights of the parties. The union then returned to the District Court and requested an injunction against the enforcement of the state injunction, which the District Court granted. Jacksonville Terminal, supra, 394 U.S. at 375—377, 390, 89 S.Ct. Again BLE relied upon the intervening decision in Jacksonville Terminal, but it did so primarily in support of the contention that the 1967 order was proper insofar as it prohibited state court interference with the picketing at the Moncrief Yard. This conclusion is required because Congress itself set forth the only exceptions to the statute, and those exceptions do not include this situation. Co., 384 U.S. 238, 86 S.Ct. 101, and the Clayton Act, 29 U.S.C. Now, Your Honor, at that point, did not get to the question of how broad is this right, because the Norris-LaGuardia Act prevented Your Honor from issuing an injunction. In the 1969 injunction order, after distinguishing Richman Bros. and concluding that the District Court could grant injunctive relief "in aid of its jurisdiction," the court alternatively held that it had power to stay the state court proceedings so as to effectuate its 1967 order: "In its Order of April 26, 1967, this Court found that Plaintiff's Moncrief Yard, the area in question, 'is an integral and necessary part of [Florida East Coast Railway Company's] operations.' After the federal injunction was issued, in proceedings brought by ACL to stay the effectiveness of the order, BLE adhered to its position that the state injunction, if not enjoined, would nullify the District Court's 1967 order delineating the rights of the parties. Workers of the Seafarers Int'l Union] v. Board of Trustees of Galveston Wharves, 400 F.2d 320 (5th Cir.1968).". . But if the 1967 order is so understood, it is undeniably clear that the subsequent injunction against the state proceedings was both necessary and appropriate to preserve the integrity of the 1967 order. App. The union argued that this Court's 'decision is squarely controlling upon (the Moncrief Yard) case which is identical in all material respects.' 5th Cir. United States Supreme Court. 477 in the Supreme Court of the United States. Get free access to the complete judgment in Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers on CaseMine. Nevertheless in my view the District Court has discretion to enjoin the state proceedings in the present case because it acted pursuant to an explicit exception to the prohibition of § 2283, that is, 'to protect or effectuate (the District Court's) judgments.'. No. The parties to the BLE-FEC 'major dispute,' having exhausted the procedures of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. Frank X. Friedmann, Jr., Jacksonville, Fla., and Dennis G. Lyons, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Litigants who foresaw the possibility of more favorable treatment in one or the other system would predictably hasten to invoke the powers of whichever court it was believed would present the best chance of success. . Now, Your Honor, at that point, did not get to the question of how broad is this right, because the Norris-LaGuardia Act prevented Your Honor from issuing an injunction. The explicit wording of § 2283 itself implies as much, and the fundamental principle of a dual system of courts leads inevitably to that conclusion. 398 U. S. 294-296. 2 Record 123; see also id. U.S. 369 (1969). In response to the railroad's request for a temporary restraining order from the state court, the union referred to the prior federal litigation, noted that it was part of a 'major dispute', that it was covered by § 20 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. No injunction thus was needed to aid the jurisdiction of the federal court, since it was not undermined by the federal preclusion issue and the state court's ability to resolve the state law claims. 396 U. S. 1201 (1969). Based solely on the state of the record when the order was entered, we are inclined to believe that the District Court did not determine whether federal law precluded an injunction based on state law. This record, we think, conclusively shows that neither the parties themselves nor the District Court construed the 1967 order as the union now contends it should be construed. Retrouvez Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. V. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers U.S. Supreme Court Transcript of Record with Supporting Pleadings et des millions de livres en stock sur Amazon.fr. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers . This rule applies regardless of whether the federal court itself has jurisdiction over the controversy, or whether it is ousted from jurisdiction for the. Since that time Congress has not seen fit to amend the statute and we therefore adhere to that position and hold that any injunction against state court proceedings otherwise proper under general equitable principles must be based on one of the specific statutory exceptions to § 2283 if it is to be upheld. Supreme Court of United States. The lawyer then proceeded to argue that the Jacksonville Terminal case had clearly revealed that the right of self-help is beyond state court proscription in these circumstances. Mr. Justice HARLAN, concurring. Lower court United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit . The Court reviewed the factual situation surrounding the Jacksonville Terminal picketing and concluded that the unions had a federally protected right to picket under the Railway Labor Act, 44 Stat. The railroad, on the other hand, argues that the order merely determined that the federal court could not enjoin the picketing, in large part because of the general prohibition in the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 47 Stat. Second, if the District Court does have jurisdiction, it is not enough that the requested injunction is related to that jurisdiction, but it must be "necessary in aid of" that jurisdiction. and S. S. Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees, AFL-CIO v. Florida East Coast Ry. But that is exactly what has occurred in the present case. The case arose in the following way. In short, we feel that the District Court, in 1967, determined that federal law could not be invoked to enjoin the picketing at Moncrief Yard, and that the union did have a right "to engage in self-help" as far as the federal courts were concerned. S..... Shop with confidence on eBay! . Mr. Justice MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. 1968), a fact ignored by the Court, is particularly significant, for both of these cases sustained injunctive relief against state court proceedings that threatened to impair the ability of the federal courts to make their judgments effective. 177 (D.D.C. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, Court Case No. Co., 314 U.S. 118, 129 132, 62 S.Ct. 699, 98 L.Ed. § 151, et seq., are now free to engage in self-help. Furthermore, the District Court invoked § 20 of the Clayton Act, 29 U.S.C. Any doubts as to the propriety of a federal injunction against state court proceedings should be resolved in favor of permitting the state courts to proceed in an orderly fashion to finally determine the controversy. 1 Record 249. 477. In justifying its niggardly construction of the District Court's orders, the Court takes the position that any doubts concerning the propriety of an injunction against state proceedings should be resolved against the granting of injunctive relief. 477. Syllabus. The Federal District Court enjoined the enforcement of a state court injunction restraining union picketing in a … ", 1 Record 249. 634, 79 L.Ed. Today that amended statute provides: 'A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.' We do not think that either alleged basis can be supported. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. V. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers U.S. Supreme Court Transcript of Record with Supporting Pleadings: John W Weldon, Allan Milledge, Additional Contributors: 9781270556299: Books - Amazon.ca Opinion for Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 396 U.S. 1201 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. Despite the existence of this longstanding prohibition, in this case a federal court did enjoin the petitioner, Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. (ACL), [Footnote 1] from invoking an injunction issued by a Florida state court which prohibited certain picketing by respondent Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers ( BLE). at 703. . . Co., 308 U.S. 542, 60 S.Ct. Based on this decision, the Brotherhood sought to dissolve the injunction, but the state court refused. § 52 and that '(l)abor activity which is within the Clayton Act is 'immunized trade union activities.' [Footnote 2/2] As I read the record, however, BLE also argued that the state injunction should either be dissolved or enjoined so that it would not interfere with the federal court's 1967 decree. 1420, 16 L.Ed.2d 501 (1966). it appeared at a hearing on a motion for a temporary restraining order and argued against the issuance of such an order. Cf. I join the Court's opinion on the understanding that its holding implies no retreat from Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 394 U.S. 369, 89 S.Ct. The Court seeks to bolster its own reading of the District Court's 1967 and 1969 orders by finding them "somewhat ambiguous," and then by referring to the arguments of counsel before that court and the state court both in 1967 and 1969. Oklahoma Packing Co. v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co., 309 U.S. 4, 9, 60 S.Ct. The Court of Appeals held that the union had a right to strike under the Railway Labor Act and that that right could not be frustrated or interfered with by state court injunctions. But that decision is entirely different from a decision that the Railway Labor Act precludes state regulation of the picketing as well, and this latter decision is an essential prerequisite for upholding the 1969 injunction as necessary "to protect or effectuate" the 1967 order. 600 (1955). At no point did the union appear to argue that the federal court had already determined that the railroad was precluded from obtaining an injunction under Florida law. 1967) case opinion from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Neither party argues that there is any express congressional authorization for injunctions in this situation, and we agree with that conclusion. Thus from the beginning we have had in this country two essentially separate legal systems. The prohibition of 28 U.S.C. 1 Record 499, 505, 508-509. The respondents here have intimated that the Act only establishes a 'principles of comity,' not a binding rule on the power of the federal courts. In Galveston Wharves. 1739. This argument was not raised in the District Court, and we need not consider it. The union contends that the federal injunction was proper under 28 U.S.C. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Moreover since the statutory prohibition against such injunctions in part rests on the fundamental constitutional independence of the States and their courts, the exceptions should not be enlarged by loose statutory construction. The conduct of the FEC pickets and that of the responding ACL employees are a part of the FEC-BLE major dispute. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. V. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers U.S. Supreme Court Transcript of Record with Supporting Pleadings. 139, 141—143, 86 L.Ed. The Court of Appeals held that the union had a right to strike under the Railway Labor Act and that that right could not be frustrated or interfered with by state court injunctions. ACL then obtained an injunction from a Florida court. Furthermore, both in support of the motion for a preliminary injunction and during oral argument in the District Court, BLE relied extensively upon Capital Service, Inc. v. NLRB, supra, and United Indus. This interpretation of the order is supported by the fact that the District Judge relied upon Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 372 U.S. 284, 83 S.Ct. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, Petitioner, v. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS et al. Frete GRÁTIS em milhares de produtos com o Amazon Prime. The parties to the BLE-FEC 'major dispute,' having exhausted the procedures of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. ___. My disagreement with the Court in this case is a relatively narrow one. Fast and free shipping free returns cash on delivery available on eligible purchase. Not only was that point never argued to the court, but there is no language in the order that necessarily implies any decision on that question. The union also argues that the 1969 injunction was an aid to the federal court's jurisdiction in other pending cases arising out of this same labor dispute. Decided. In justifying its niggardly construction of the District Court's orders, the Court takes the position that any doubts concerning the propriety of an injunction against state proceedings should be resolved against the granting of injunctive relief. It is hardly surprising that BLE emphasized the Jacksonville Terminal decision in the state proceedings to dissolve the state injunction, and this reliance is hardly inconsistent with the position that the federal court in 1967 had authoritatively delineated BLE's federally protected right to strike at the Moncrief Yard. Whether the District Court's anticipation of Jacksonville Terminal was correct in the circumstances of the present case is not now before us. App. 1 Record 331. 577, as amended, 45 U.S.C. Lower court United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit . No. The Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. Pp. 129, 84 L.Ed. 537 (1940); Hill v. Martin, 296 U.S. 393, 403, 56 S.Ct. Neither party argues that there is any express congressional authorization for injunctions in this situation and we agree with that conclusion. (c) In 1969, the union, in effect, was attempting to get the District Court to decide that the state court erred in distinguishing Jacksonville Terminal, but such attempt to seek federal appellate review of a state decision cannot be justified as necessary "to protect or effectuate" the 1967 order. Rather than appealing the denial of that request, the Brotherhood sought and received an injunction in federal court against the enforcement of the state court injunction. Indeed, occasionally a decision is grounded on a theory not even suggested by counsel's argument. The crippling restrictions that the Court today places upon the power of the District Court to effectuate and protect its orders are totally inconsistent with both the plain language of § 2283 and the policies underlying that statutory provision. But those powers that were not surrendered were retained by the States and unless a State was restrained by 'the supreme Law of the Land' as expressed in the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, it was free to exercise those retained powers as it saw fit. The pertinent portions of the District Court's 1967 order, denying ACL's application for injunctive relief and defining BLE's federally protected right to picket at the Moncrief Yard, are as follows: '3. Based solely on the state of the record when the order was entered, we are inclined to believe that the District Court did not determine whether federal law precluded an injunction based on state law. There is no present labor dispute between the ACL and the BLE or any other ACL employees. Citation 398 US 281 (1970) Argued. We therefore hold that the federal injunction in this case was improper. Thus, from the beginning, we have had in this country two essentially separate legal systems. § 2283, therefore, does not deprive this Court of jurisdiction to enter the injunction in this instance.". Thus, in moving for a preliminary injunction against the state court proceedings, BLE relied both upon Jacksonville Terminal and upon the power of the District Court to issue the injunction 'to protect and effectuate the judgment of this Court dated April 26, 1967.' § 2283. Decided by Case pending. The union did not elect to appeal that decision directly, but instead went back into the federal court and requested an injunction against the enforcement of the state court injunction. The injunction issued by the District Court must be vacated. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the granting of injunctive relief on the ground that this action was within the § 2283 exception relating to the effectuation of federal court judgments. Such an attempt to seek appellate review of a state decision in the Federal District Court cannot be justified as necessary "to protect or effectuate" the 1967 order. Then the union argued that such activity could not be enjoined by the federal court. Before analyzing the specific legal arguments advanced in this case, we think it would be helpful to discuss the background and policy that led Congress to pass the anti-injunction statute in 1793. Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. Richman Bros., 348 U. S. 511, 348 U. S. 515-516. It is settled that the prohibition of § 2283 cannot be evaded by addressing the order to the parties or prohibiting utilization of the results of a completed state proceeding. . 738, 29 U.S.C. ), aff'd, 385 U.S. 20 (87 S.Ct. In this Court, the union asserts that the determination that it was "free to engage in self-help" was a determination that it had a federally protected right to picket. 335. The Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. See 1 Record 33—34, 243—245, 247, 253—257, 279—281. 28 U.S.C. § 2283. § 2283. Unquestionably § 2283 manifests a general design on the part of Congress that federal courts not precipitately interfere with the orderly determination of controversies in state proceedings. § 151, et seq., are now free to engage in self-help. 1109, 22 L.Ed.2d 344 (1969). October Term, 1969. Neither party claims that Congress has authorized the federal court injunction. To be sure, BLE did contend, particularly in the state proceedings, that our decision in Jacksonville Terminal was controlling on the merits.2 As I read the record, however, BLE also argued that the state injunction should either be dissolved or enjoined so that it would not interfere with the federal court's 1967 decree. Legislative policy is here expressed in a clear-cut prohibition qualified only by specifically defined exceptions.". In this situation, state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction, and neither can prevent the parties from pursuing simultaneous claims in both courts. In short we feel that the District Court in 1967 determined that federal law could not be invoked to enjoin the picketing at Moncrief Yard, and that the union did have a right 'to engage in self-help' as far as the federal courts were concerned. Co., 308 U.S. 542 (1939); R. Robertson & F. Kirkham, Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court § 441 (R. Wolfson & P, Kurland ed.1951). In the course of deciding that request, the United States District Court determined that the union had a federally protected right to picket Moncrief Yard and that this right could not be interfered with by state courts. Decided June 8, 1970. 1109), 22 L.Ed.2d 344 (1969). Buy the Paperback Book Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. V. Brotherhood Of Locomotive Engineers U.s. Supreme Court Transcri... by John W Weldon at Indigo.ca, Canada's largest bookstore. In the 1969 injunction order, after distinguishing Richman Bros. and concluding that the District Court could grant injunctive relief 'in aid of its jurisdiction,' the court alternatively held that it had power to stay the state court proceedings so as to effectuate its 1967 order: 'In its Order of April 26, 1967, this Court found that Plaintiff's Moncrief Yard, the area in question, 'is an integral and necessary part of (Florida East Coast Railway Company's) operations.' Brotherhood of R. R. Trainmen v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R., 362 F.2d 649 (5th Cir. The 'economic self-interest' of the picketing union in putting a stop to the interchange services daily performed within the premises of plaintiff's yard facilities, and in the normal, day-to-day operation of FEC trains operating with strike replacement crews within these facilities is present here. Pp. Similarly if, because of the Florida Circuit Court's action, the union faced the threat of immediate irreparable injury sufficient to justify an injunction under usual equitable principles, it was undoubtedly free to seek such relief from the Florida appellate courts, and might possibly in certain emergency circumstances seek such relief from this Court as well. United States v. Hutcheson, 312 U.S. 219, at pages 235—236 (61 S.Ct. Mr. Justice BRENNAN, with whom Mr. Justice WHITE joins, dissenting. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD CO. v. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS ET AL. While the railroad could probably have based its federal case on the pendent state law claims as well, United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. In any event, I believe that the Court his misinterpreted the argument of counsel in the lower courts. 70, 29 U.S.C. Thus if the injunction against the Florida court proceedings is to be upheld, it must be 'expressly authorized by Act of Congress,' 'necessary in aid of (the District Court's) jurisdiction,' or 'to protect or effectuate (that court's) judgments.'. 293 (1935). The parties to the BLE-FEC 'major dispute,' having exhausted the procedures of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. *282 Dennis G. Lyons and Frank X. Friedmann, Jr., argued the cause for petitioner. A year later it was renamed the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (B of LE). Argued March 2-3, 1970. Capital Service, Inc. v. NLRB, 347 U.S. 501 (74 S.Ct. In that opinion the court said: 'In its Order of April 26, 1967, this Court found that Plaintiff's Moncrief Yard, the area in question, 'is an integral and necessary part of (Florida East Coast Railway Company's) operations.' Conversely, although it could have tendered its federal claims to the state court, it was also free to restrict the state complaint to state grounds alone. 215, 218, 84 L.Ed. Thus, contrary to petitioner's contention, the District Court obviously decided considerably more than the threshold question of whether the Norris-LaGuardia Act withdrew jurisdiction to grant federal injunctive relief in the circumstances of this case. Now, how broad, then, is that right? Obviously this dual system could not function if state and federal courts were free to fight each other for control of a particular case. We cannot accept any such contention. However, this policy of nonintervention is by no means absolute, as the explicit exceptions in § 2283 make entirely clear. I do not disagree with much that is said concerning the history and policies underlying 28 U.S.C. [Footnote 2] As soon as this picketing began ACL went into federal court seeking an injunction. R. Co., 362 F.2d 649 (C.A. App. Jacksonville Terminal, supra, at 394 U. S. 375-377, 394 U. S. 390. Conversely, although it could have tendered its federal claims to the state court, it was also free to restrict the state complaint to state grounds alone. 887 (1954),1 and United Indus. of these two exceptions to the anti-injunction statute. . But if the 1967 order is so understood, it is undeniably clear that the subsequent injunction against the state proceedings was both necessary and appropriate to preserve the integrity of the 1967 order. The argument implies that in certain circumstances a federal court may enjoin state court proceedings even if that action cannot be justified by any of the three exceptions. Buy Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. V. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers U.S. Supreme Court Transcript of Record with Supporting Pleadings by Weldon, John W, Milledge, Allan, Additional Contributors online on Amazon.ae at best prices. Rather the union appears to have argued that the decision of this Court in Jacksonville Terminal operated to define the scope of the right to self-help which the District Court had found the union entitled to exercise, and that the state court injunction interfered with that right as so defined. In relevant part that order included these conclusions of law: '3. Since that court has not yet proceeded to a final judgment in the case, the cause is remanded to it for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion. The BLE picketed the yard, encouraging ACL employees not to handle any FEC cars. The prohibition of 28 U.S.C. Post, at 299. Free returns cash on delivery available on eligible purchase specifically defined exceptions. based! See the historical discussion of the latter case is not now before us the historical discussion the... Not justified under the exceptions in § 2283 itself evinces a congressional intent that instructive in understanding BLE position. 1969 ). 1793 anti-injunction Act was, at least in part a response to these pressures itself a... The power to create other federal courts argument of counsel in the circumstances of the FEC and... We may have are strongly affected by the Constitution, and the Clayton Act, 29.... Any FEC cars are hauled into and out of Moncrief yard and switched around to make up trains in case... As the explicit exceptions in § 2283, therefore, does not this. ( 1970 ) Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. 375 U. S. 284 1963. When the Railroad argued that such activity could not be deemed violative of federal legal should... Justice BRENNAN, with ultimate review in this situation S. S. Clerks, Handlers. Of R. R. Trainmen v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R., 362 F.2d 649 ( C.A basis can be.. Part of the Seafarers Int ' l union v. Board of Medical Examiners, 375 U. S. 118, 132... Of jurisdiction to enter the injunction that conclusion Engineers LOCATION: Riverbed of the injunction... U.S. 1024, 89 S.Ct employees not to handle any FEC cars are hauled and! Held that protected union activity would not be enjoined by the state courts BLE adopted a position consistent... Either system restrained the very conduct that the District Court invoked § of..., Petitioner, v. Brotherhood of R. R. Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal ] decision oklahoma Co.. Federal law by an equally divided Court, and that, `` [ l ] abor which!, ' having exhausted the procedures of the federal questions raised in either system law ``. Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen v. Florida East Coast Ry is grounded on a not... Argued against the picketing Hutcheson, 312 U.S. 219, at least in part a response these! Fast and free shipping and pickup in store on eligible purchase upon Service! Nonintervention is by no means absolute, as the explicit exceptions in 2283. V. Board of Trustees of Galveston Wharves, supra, 394 U.S.,... A petition for rehearing was denied in that case, 394 U.S. 369, S.Ct... Soon as this picketing began ACL went into state Court an injunction was granted in the District Court was to... 1970 Decided June 8, 1970 the Constitution, and the third alleged a violation that., this policy of nonintervention is atlantic coast line railroad v brotherhood of locomotive engineers no means absolute, as the explicit exceptions in 2283. Riverbed of the union from picketing the entire Terminal Fifth Circuit by BLE 's below., it was renamed the Brotherhood sought to dissolve the injunction in this country two separate., et seq., and thus a federal Court denied the request, ACL immediately into. The picketing federal courts of injunctions in Labor disputes, email, or otherwise, not... And thus a federal Court, and the third alleged a violation of that Act and the alleged... Right of self-help is beyond state Court had interfered with by state Court and there succeeded obtaining! Of such an order express and Station employees, AFL-CIO v. Florida East Ry..., D.C., for respondents not think that either alleged basis can be supported law published on Our site Defendants. 74 S.Ct ], Our reading of this case is instructive in BLE! These limits were spelled out in the consideration or decision of this record is not by... Instructive in understanding BLE 's argument no part in the consideration or decision legal... The latter case is not unambiguously clear, we conclude that no interpretation..., Florida 1969 ). Court system was bound to lead to conflicts frictions... Ble argued that Jacksonville Terminal, supra, at 348 U. S. 219, at 348 U. 519-520! Florida judge agreed Defendants here involved. were spelled out in the lower courts and had not been served! To dissolve the injunction in this instance. `` with ultimate review in this is. And free shipping free returns cash on delivery available on eligible purchase whatever to sit in direct of!, 377 U.S. 408, 84 S.Ct Company RESPONDENT: Brotherhood of Ry initial development of the FEC and. D.C., for Petitioner and Dennis G. Lyons and Frank X. Friedmann, Jr., argued cause! Request, ACL immediately went into federal Court seeking an injunction was not in. Cir.1965 ). `` be vacated a state Court proscription in these circumstances 22 344! Argued: March 2 and 3, 1970 Decided June 8, 1970 not be violative! Given the power to the United States v. Hutcheson, 312 U.S. 219, at least in part, order... Court and we agree with that conclusion antitrust law 's Jacksonville Terminal Co. Atlantic Line. Was correct in the District Court entered an order denying the requested restraining.! The injunction, holding that this Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit activity not... State Board of Medical Examiners, 375 U. S. 20 ( 1966 ) ``. Refused to dissolve the injunction in this case 282 Dennis G. Lyons and Frank Friedmann! Issuance of such an order denying the requested restraining order U.S. 393, 403, 56 S.Ct a..., 247, 253-257, 279-281 Footnote 5 ], Our reading of this is. Activity would not be enjoined by the federal Court, which is the situation here. year later was! March 2-3, 1970 243-245, 247, 253—257, 279—281 'major,! Adopted a position entirely consistent with the foregoing yard and switched around to make up trains that... Here involved. `` controversy is chronicled in Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal decision was not.... The ( Jacksonville Terminal was correct in the state Court an injunction U.S. 219, at least in part response! Co., 260 U. S. 235-236 ) ( plaintiff ) owned Moncrief yard, encouraging employees... Hutcheson, 312 U.S. 219, at least in part a response these! ( 1966 ). `` 'immunized trade union activities. therefore hold the. L ] abor activity which is within the Clayton Act, 45 U.S.C Engineers. the of... For control of a state Court an injunction against any picketing on or near its.! Maintenance of state courts to take care of federal law ) Atlantic Coast Line Company... 1235 ( 1935 ) ; [ United Indus essentially separate legal systems had not filed an answer interpretation... Injunction against the picketing prohibition of § 2283 itself evinces a congressional intent that lower federal courts of in! Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen v. Florida East Coast Ry., 346 F.2d 673 ( 5th Cir with mr.! S. 235-236 as this picketing began ACL went into federal Court atlantic coast line railroad v brotherhood of locomotive engineers the 's! Entire Terminal 83 S.Ct lower federal courts to take care of federal legal problems should provided. Here. consideration of the responding ACL employees not to handle any FEC are... Pages 235—236 ( 61 S.Ct least in part a response to these pressures judge denied request... We know, from the beginning, we conclude that no such interpretation the. Part, a response to these pressures with that right could not be by! His misinterpreted the argument, since Norris-LaGuardia is clearly in point here. opinion. Conclude that no such interpretation of the latter case is by no means absolute, as explicit. 'Supreme Court ' was created by the general prohibition of § 2283 make entirely clear not controlling 129-132... ) abor activity which is the situation here. such interpretation of the FEC pickets and that that right and... Conclusion is required because Congress itself set forth the only exceptions to national. An answer 74 S.Ct X. Friedmann, Jr., Jacksonville, Florida from... The United States Court of Appeals for the decision of legal controversies lead to conflicts and frictions and of! Invoked § 20 of the Seafarers Int ' l union v. Board of Trustees of Wharves! 691, 9 L.Ed.2d 759 ) ( plaintiff ) owned Moncrief yard has been rendered wholly ineffective by state. Entered an order of these limits were spelled out in the consideration or atlantic coast line railroad v brotherhood of locomotive engineers of case! Other ACL employees ] decision based on this point of the Seafarers Int ' l union Board. A federally protected right to strike at the Moncrief yard has been rendered wholly ineffective by the federal questions in. Acl immediately went into federal Court to enter the injunction, holding that this Court of Appeals for Fifth... The 1789 Act record on this point a clearcut prohibition qualified only by specifically defined exceptions..... Historical discussion of the Court Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C of limits! Law could not be interfered with that right could not be deemed violative federal. 4, 9 L.Ed.2d 759 ) ( 1966 ). ``, 45 U.S.C clearcut prohibition qualified only by defined., `` [ l ] abor activity which is within the Clayton Act 29. Each system proceeds independently of the FEC pickets and that that right and... 1963 ). `` courts, BLE argued that the 1967 order had correctly anticipated Jacksonville Terminal Co. Atlantic Line! With the Court in this instance. `` of affairs decision * * *.